Tuesday, December 04, 2007

 

The president takes a Hindu approach to foreign policy

Abandoning earlier claims of existing nuclear programs, President Bush has concluded that Iran was a danger, is a danger, and will be again.

See, even though the weapons program doesn't exist now, it once did. And will again. Time is merely a construct of the mind. It has no intrinsic form. What is was. What was will be. What will be was, but will be again, and consequently is.

Comments:
Nice to see that you now agree that killing innocent Iranians just isn't necessary.
This guy indeed may be more dangerous than Hitler,when all is said and done.
And a side note:Figuerido's Video's now has the great Iranian film "Offside" on it's shelves now.I recommend it.
 
Iran will have nuclear weapons within five years. Then, look out. Of course, Leftists will not then admit that they were wrong.
 
And we now possess them and are the only country to have used them in the past.Do you wish for a country such as China to engage in a military attack on our shores?
 
Eric, I read the link in your post and here is a segment from the article:

"A declassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate released by the U.S. government on Monday said Iran had stopped working toward a nuclear weapon in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until at least 2010."

So you think we are safe because our intelligence reveals they will not have enough uranium for a nuclear bomb until 2010?

The evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons and that it hates the U.S. and wants to destroy us is irrefutable. Whether we believe or suspect Iran is on a path to obtain nuclear weapons in three years or ten years does not really matter. What matters is that it must not be allowed to do so. I am also quite concerned about the quality of the intelligence. We have no real way of knowing how close the Iranians are and every month we delay is dangerous.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
mresquan said...

On second thought I'd rather not hear an answer,as it's depressing to think that many right wingers(Andy included) are quite giddy about what happened on 9/11,as it has allowed them to spread their hatred and bigotry at unprecendented levels.
Andy,no reports,absolutely none which show that they are not engaged in making nuclear weaponry will ever satisfy you.
 
Enriched uranium is of no value for a weapon without a weapons program which they don't have.

Any country that detonates a nuclear bomb on any of our allies would be annihilated instantly. To think that a couple of nuclear weapons would be anything other than a defensive measure to stop an attack is absurd.
 
The entire world learned an important lesson with the difference in the way the US reacted regarding Iraq and North Korea. North Korea proved it had a nuclear bomb so the US negotiated a settlement. Iraq proved it didn't have WMD so was invaded.
 
The entire Iranian long range missile program can only serve one purpose.

Yes.
 
mresquan, you need to learn to argue your position without personal attacks. The only people that applaud the personal attacks are people that supported your views in the first place. If you seek to persuade others to your viewpoint, the approach is worthless.

It is not true that nothing would convince me Iran is not producing nuclear weapons. Iran could act and conduct itself in such a way that i would fell assured, but at a minimum those activities would have to include ceasing the calls for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel and the claims by its President that Iran had the military capability to undertake the task.
 
I also see a tendency to attribute Western logic to Iran;s actions and pursuits. However, Twelver Shiites like Iran's President do not analyze relations between the U.S. and Iran with our style of logic and belief in deterrence. Iran's President literally believes that he must make war and cause chaos to speed up and enable the return of the so-called Mahdi. In short, mresquan, you are attributing logical, reasonable motives and thought processes to a man that is to a significant degree driven by faith and not rational thought. Eric, it is time for a show on Iran. I can see that it would be quite lively.
 
Yeah Mresquan, personal attacks on people who advocate the murder of hundreds of thousands of people just isn't nice.
 
The problem is that I have never advocated such a thing. I have never advocated killing any innocent person. Did it ever occur to you that you are so consumed by your ideological beliefs that it has risen to the level of religious belief? The only difference between you and the violent Muslims calling for the murder of the teacher in Sudan over the teddy bear incident is one of degree.
 
And Iran has a long history of pre-emptive wars to support Andy's logic, right?

You don't know anything more about Middle Eastern logic than you do Western logic, Andy, which is NOTHING.
 
LMFAO 10:29!
 
That's right, when innocent people are killed in war it isn't murder but "collateral damage." Got it.

There is NO difference between warmongers regardless of which religion or country they belong to.
 
Except that the Prez of Iran isn't the Decider Guy there.
We can expect more right wingnuttery spin on this as the days progress, but what Mr Stunich and the rest of that realm need to understand is what prompted this NEI report, that is so contrary to what Bush & Cheney have been urging, to come out anyway?

There is much speculation but it looks like the Pentagon, CIA, and the other intels are tired of being used to support costly invasions and then being blamed when reality doesn't pan out.
Obviously somebody is standing up to BushCo.
Now it remains to be seen what Congress does about Kyl-Lieberman.

What will Hillary say?
 
Yes, people who are against pre-emptive wars on innocent people are just like people who want someone killed over the name of a teddy bear. Irrefutable and impressive logic there.
 
Not to pick on you, Eric, but the word you wanted to use was "Hindu," which is a belief system, as opposed to "Hindi," which is a language.
 
Well the current Iranian regime has been in existence since 1979 and it has a terrible track record. It has meddled in the affairs of Lebanon and played a major role in the last war between Hezbollah and Israel. Iran has sponsored terrorist acts around the world. That Iran's President is a puppet controlled by the Ayatollah that thinks he has a pipeline to God and the right to rule until the "Mahdi" returns is hardly comforting. The Ayatollah is supportive of Ahmadinjad's (sp?) views or he would not be so strident.

Your faith that Iran means us no harm is dangerous. I see a legitimate debate as to the best plan of actions and as to whether military intervention is appropriate, but debate about Iran's intentions and our right to stop such a rogue state from obtaining nuclear weapons is misguided.
 
No doubt that Amhadinejad is nuts.But continued threats by our government will only be of harm to Iranian citizens.
Andy,well as far as the personal stuff,your views get me heated.But do realize that virtually all authoritarian regimes have increased power due to the government's response to 9/11.
 
"Not to pick on you, Eric, but the word you wanted to use was "Hindu," which is a belief system, as opposed to "Hindi," which is a language."

To pick on you for being a Zionist shill, your much more truthful accurate topic phrase would read, "The president takes an Israeli approach to foreign policy." Right now, our California Senator representing AIPAC and the Israel Lobby, Tom Lantos, is getting ready for their spin on the recent Annapolis theatre of the absurd. Stacking the deck with pro-Israeli testimony, Lantos will publicly condemn Hamas and Palestinians for not towing the wunderbar road map directions to Greater Israel.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
How sweet to read your description of the inner workings of the mind of the President who by all sane accounts is the loopiest President this dear nation has yet been forced to accept as leader.
 
Yeah, that's the point about Hillary.
I'm really wondering how she's going to explain her voting for Kyl/ Lieberman now that this is out. Same way she did her vote on going into Iraq?
Or, will she, and the rest of the AIPAC greased Congress find reasons to hedge.
It's almost surreal that there are those who still want to go ahead with what? a surgical strike? On what? Based upon what?
Remember, the NPT Iran signed entitles them to produce nuclear energy, which is what they claim they are doing. There is no evidence, (outside of Stunich's "irrefutable" evidence), within intelligence communities here and abroad to the contrary. Isn't this what the IAEA had said previously?
As I saw it put in another blog:

IAEA - 2
US - 0
 
How sweet to read your description of the inner workings of the mind of the President

... By which I meant to thank Eric.
 
How many of you see a similarity between fruitcakeijad and Steve Lewis?
 
Israeli officials, who've been warning that Iran would soon pose a nuclear threat to the world, reacted angrily Tuesday to a new U.S. intelligence finding that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003 and to date hasn't resumed trying to produce nuclear weapons.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak directly challenged the new assessment in an interview with Israel's Army Radio, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the new finding wouldn't deter Israel or the United States from pressing its campaign to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.

"It seems Iran in 2003 halted for a certain period of time its military nuclear program, but as far as we know, it has probably since revived it," Barak said.

"Even after this report, the American stance will still focus on preventing Iran from attaining nuclear capability," Olmert said. "We will expend every effort along with our friends in the U.S. to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons."

Probably no country felt more blindsided than Israel by the announcement Monday that 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, in a stunning reassessment, had concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its nuclear program in 2003 and with "moderate confidence" that it hadn't restarted that program as of mid-2007.

For years, Israel has been at the forefront of international efforts to isolate Iran , with Israeli intelligence estimates warning that Iran was on the brink of a nuclear "point of no return," an ominous assessment that often fueled calls for a military strike.

Israeli officials also have sought to isolate Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , citing his calls for Israel's destruction and his skepticism that the Holocaust took place.

The U.S. intelligence finding said that evidence "suggests" that Iran isn't as determined as U.S. officials thought to develop a nuclear weapon and that a diplomatic approach that included economic pressure and some nod to Iranian goals for regional influence might persuade Iran to continue to suspend weapons development.

On Tuesday morning, Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper called the U.S. findings "a blow below the belt." An analysis in the competing Haaretz newspaper suggested that Israel might come to be viewed as a "panic-stricken rabbit" and said that the U.S. intelligence estimate established "a new, dramatic reality: The military option, American or Israeli, is off the table, indefinitely."

"This is definitely a blow to attempts to stop Iran from becoming nuclear because now everybody will be relaxed and those that were reluctant to go ahead with harsher sanctions will now have a good excuse," said Efraim Inbar , the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Israel's Bar-Ilan University .

The estimate created an awkward situation for Israeli leaders, who mostly tried to sidestep direct criticism of the Bush administration.

Olmert sought to focus on the report's finding that Iran had been deterred in 2003 from pursuing its nuclear weapons program by international pressure. That, said Olmert, made continued sanctions essential.

Barak was tougher and promised that the report wouldn't influence Israeli policy.

"We cannot allow ourselves to rest just because of an intelligence report from the other side of the earth, even if it is from our greatest friend," he said.

Israeli officials also highlighted where the U.S. and Israeli assessments agree.

They noted that while the latest U.S. assessment said that the earliest Iran was likely to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb was 2010, Israeli assessments weren't dramatically different, finding that Iran could develop the workings for a nuclear bomb by 2009.

Gerald Steinberg , the chairman of the political science department at Bar-Ilan University , suggested that the findings might increase the chances that Israel will attack Iran because they reduce the chances that the United States will act.

"I think it may introduce a lot of stress in the Israeli-American relationship," he said.

But Emily Landau , the director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies , said it would be very difficult for Israel to launch an attack without explicit support from the United States .

"If Israel were to carry out a military action, it would have to be in coordination with the United States , so if the United States is moving away from that option, it would have implications for Israel as well," she said.
 
The savages who practice radical Islam continue their march down the road of seventh century barbarism. No other religion in the modern world is so vile, so hate-filled, so violently aggressive in the pursuit of its goals.

In Indonesia, the world’s largest Islamic state, three Christian teenage girls walking home from school were abducted and beheaded as “Ramadan trophies” by militants who conceived the idea after a visit with fellow jihadists in the Philippines. Plastic bags containing the severed heads were dumped in the girls’ village in Indonesia’s Sulawesi province.

Accompanying the grisly “trophies” was a handwritten note threatening more such attacks. The note read: “Wanted: 100 more Christian heads, teenaged or adult, male or female; blood shall be answered with blood, soul with soul, head with head.”

In Sudan, the genocidal nation whose Muslim majority is systematically slaughtering Christians in Darfur, a court has sentenced a British teacher, Gillian Gibbons, to fifteen days in a filthy, disease-infested Sudanese prison, followed by permanent deportation from the country. Her crime? She allowed her young pupils to name a teddy bear “Mohammad.”

As the kangaroo court sentenced her to this ridiculous sentence for this absurd “crime,” protesters in the streets outside brandished swords and other weapons and demanded that she be executed!

Then there are our good friends, the Saudis, who laugh at us from the sands of their kingdom as they hold us hostage to their oil while they brutalize their own people, mostly women, in the name of Allah.

The latest in an ongoing string of outrages from the kingdom is the case of the young woman who was gang raped. A Saudi court sentenced her — that’s right, her — to 90 lashes for the “crime” of sitting in a car with a man who was not her husband.

This is the same group of savages whose morality police allowed a group of girls to die because they tried to escape their burning school without their heads properly covered in the manner proscribed by this sick religion. Fifteen girls between the ages of 13 and 17 were trampled to death and 52 others were hurt when a blaze swept through their school.

Some 800 schoolgirls were crammed into a building designed for only 250. The main gate to the school was locked. There were no emergency exits, no fire alarms and no fire extinguishers in the building. When the building caught fire, the girls tried to flee. Police stopped them, refusing to allow them to leave the burning building. When male bystanders tried to rescue the girls, they were told that “It is sinful to approach them.”

As Mona Eltahawy, a reporter and a Saudi Muslim now living in the United States, wrote at the time, “Girls died because zealots at the gate would rather see them burn than appear in public dressed inappropriately.”

As merciful, peace-loving people, whose character derives from the grace of Christianity, Americans find it hard to fathom the twisted values that inform such religious teaching as that practiced across most of the Middle East. Ignorant celebrities and misguided politicians are deluded to think that such barbarous dogma is anything but evil. Fools like Rosie O’Donnell tell America that so-called radical Christianity is more dangerous than radical Islam. To his credit, President Bush has not told us lately that Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by extremists. Perhaps now he understands that it is simply a religion of extremism.

Tens of millions of Muslims the world over subscribe to these beliefs. They believe that women should be subjugated, “infidels” murdered and iron-fisted legalism imposed on the world. Nothing less than civilization itself depends on the outcome of the struggle.
 
Iran will have nuclear weapons within five years. Then, look out. Of course, Leftists will not then admit that they were wrong.

They have them. They have always had them. And they will have them again.


Ommmmmmmm.
 
Not to pick on you, Eric, but the word you wanted to use was "Hindu," which is a belief system, as opposed to "Hindi," which is a language.

Really? I thought Hindu was just a noun.
 
thank you, doug, for that marvelous atrocity travelogue.
Uh, we're talking about Iran here. I gather you won't be satisfied until we bomb the whole lot of them Muslims, anywhere and everywhere we find them. Some people will always be unsatisfied.
But I do wonder about the other poster @ 4:06 who seems to suggest that Israel didn't see this coming?

Somehow I doubt that.
 
So let's enlighten them, but also get the hell out.
 
Why is it that any criticism of Islam is interpreted as a call for bombing? Talk about knee-jerk!
 
People who want to destroy Islam haven't explained how they are going to do so in the rest of the world including the US and Europe. Are they going to make it illegal? Arrest its members? How do you "kill" a religion? Inquisitions?
 
The people who are calling for the destruction of Islam sound just like fanatical Muslims. They all feed off each other's blood lust to justify killing each other.
 
Who specifically is saying it has to be "destroyed?"
 
"As merciful, peace-loving people, whose character derives from the grace of Christianity, Americans...."

Somehow I doubt the Iraqis would agree with you.
 
Doug Patton, Eric.
 
Like America never meddles in other countries democratically elected governments' when "we" don't like them??
 
In a nut shell, it sounded like Bush was saying that even though we know they don't have the ability to make a bomb, if we stop accusing them of making a bomb, they will make a bomb.

And Israel seems to be saying that since the US knows there is no nuclear threat from Iran, they may be forced to attack Iran to prevent it from getting the bomb that there is no evidence they are trying to get.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We must continue to spend zillions of dollars to defeat terrorism that we are increasing by trying to defeat it. Great deal for the military contractors until we don't have any more money to give them. At the rate things are going, by the time we run out of credit everyone in the world will hate us and we won't have any money to buy friends or put up any defense.
 
Right, 5:54. Israel also.
 
Okay, well Doug Patton is one person. I imagine there are three or four more.

But it's a moot point. It's the fastest growing religion on the planet.
 
Eric V. Kirk said...

"Why is it that any criticism of Islam is interpreted as a call for bombing? Talk about knee-jerk!"

Well, first off, you set up this thread about the intel-interuptus on Bush's wet dream of being the Decider Guy for WWIII.
Instead of dealing with that issue you have your usual right wing pro Israel bloggers ranting on about how dispicable Muslims are and how we'll regret this because of "irrefutable" evidence that the opposite is true, Iran is producing a bomb even as we speak,(Stunich).
So if they're not promoting military intervention, then what are they suggesting?
If you can recall back far enough these were some of the very same, or similar claims, made by the Bush Admin in response to Hans Blix's findings on the lack of WMD's in Iraq. Then what happened?
Pardon the addition.

And aren't you the one who gets pissed at Steve, or whomever, when a thread on a different topic starts resulting in attacks on Israel and Zionism? Anti Semitism you call it?
All of that shit aside, I am dumbfounded by the quantum leap of logic which equates the idea of NOT wanting go to war with Iran over unsubstantiated claims as a death sentence for Israel. You know, the one nation in the ME that actually DOES have nukes! [Shhhh! No one's supposed to know that.]
 
I just read Doug Patton's post. He refers to "radical Islam," not Islam per se, although he later refers to "tens of millions" who follow the same.

Still, Islam, like any other religion, has its crazies. The difference is that some of them have almost complete power of governments, some of which are declared enemies of the US and some of which are close allies.

I have said before that I believe Iran in its present incarnation would use nuclear weapons against other nations if they had them. I said that I would not necessarily oppose pre-emptive military action.

I opposed Israel's bombing of the Iraq facilities back in 1981 and actually marched in protest. Subsequently, it may be that that action saved the lives of millions of Iranians, Kurds, and perhaps Syrians, Turks, Saudis, etc.

I am not a pacifist. I believe there are worse evils than war, though war rates pretty high on the list.

I posted a thread in which I asked leftists here when they would actually support US military action. Most dodged the question entirely. A couple said only if we are directly attacked. One or two others said they would support war to prevent genocide. Most agreed that the US hasn't been justified with military action since World War II (and at least one said it is never justified). I'm not so sure I agree with that.

However, it does appear that the president and his think tanks are scrambling for excuses to expand the war. They won't make the WMD mistake again and be . What resulted was the bit of ridiculous rhetoric which I made fun of in the main post. If there is no impending danger, I certainly don't support military action based on speculation.
 
The Hindi word for yesterday, "kul" is the same as the word for tomorrow! This ancient Vedic wisdom is build right into their every day language. Eric, I think you have mistakenly credited Bush with wisdom rather than ignorance.
 
I don't know... I'm starting to think this President is going to be remembered as one of the greatest of all time. Seriously, what a cohesive way to start out the 21st century!
 
5th Column:

From Wikipedia:

"The term is also used in reference to a population who are assumed to have loyalties to countries other than the one in which they reside, or who support some other nation in war efforts against the country they live in, which makes them traitors (see dual loyalty.)"

When Americans are selling wars against the enemy states of one religious nation, not the U.S., when Americans are promoting the self-interests of another nation not America at America's expense, literally in money, armaments and cannon fodder, when do we call it what it is? a 5th Column in our midst. People subverting American foreign policy to aid a foreign nation not America.

Zionism is the ideology of the real live 5th Column in America subverting U.S. interests to serve Israel. And convicted spies from AIPAC prove it.
 
If the Zionist salesman here deletes my post, go to my blog site to read it.
 
Don't miss Friedman's NYT column today on Iran's NIE of the US. Surprisingly funny.
 
Goggle "New World Order" for a glimpse of what comes next for the Bush administration's Iran moves to come. It's all smoke and mirrors for the disenfranchised American.
 
It amazes me that no one sees the political theatre behind all of this. Do you think that George Bush was blindsided? All of his comments are pre written and discussed. The point of the whole thing is that we have long known that the planned bombing of Iran was and is potentially disasterous. The stick is gone and the carrot will now appear. Bush's job is to keep the right assured of his devotion to "regime change". The interesting thing is that his "base" is only convincd by rhetoric that is patently un statesmanlike and even stupid. He seems totally willing to sacrifice any historical dignity. Ahmahddinejad is also the master of the unstatesmanlike bluster. He finds himself threatened by a huge American military presence right next door. He threatens Israel. He calls for the downfall of the west. Preaching to his own choir. The reality is far different than the rhetoric.
 
The most interesting point in the new National Intelligence Estimate, which reports that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is not about what Iran did or did not do in developing nuclear weapons. It is about how Iran makes decisions about such things.

The U.S. intelligence community does not believe Iran is a madman.

"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political economic and military costs," says the NIE. "This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige and goals for regional influence in other ways, might -- if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible -- prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."

Whether American politicians accept or reject the assumption that Iran acts rationally will have tremendous consequences for the fate of the Middle East and for our security.

The case for believing that Iran is an irrational actor largely rests on the shoulders of its current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is because Ahmadinejad routinely says irrational things, especially when it comes to Israel.

In 2005, Ahmadinejad convened a conference called "The World Without Zionism." Here, he laid out an Apocalyptic vision in which Israel-or the "Zionist regime," as he invariably calls it-becomes the final battleground in a long struggle between Islam and the West.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcomes of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

"Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad said.

A Congressional Research Service report published in August referenced reports that contend "Ahmadinejad believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th 'Hidden' Imam, whose return from occultation would, according to Twelver Shiite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion."

"I have a connection to God," Ahmadinejad said at a Tehran mosque last October. He added that President Bush "also receives inspiration-but from Satan."

All this inevitably suggests a chain of thought: A leader who believes it is his job to usher in an Apocalyptic age, where Israel is destroyed and Islam becomes the global religion, cannot be deterred from constructing, or using, a nuclear weapon. Therefore, an Ahmadinejad-led Iran must be pre-empted from obtaining one.

This chain of thought draws us toward another pre-emptive Middle Eastern war and counsels that we risk all the horrendous unintended consequences that could flow from such a war.

But is Ahmadinejad really Iran's decider? If he had personally driven Iran's nuclear-weapons policy, the NIE released this week would make no sense. Admadinejad was elected president of Iran on June 24, 2005. The NIE says Iran halted its nuclear-weapons program in the fall of 2003 and had not restarted it by the middle of this year. During the whole time Ahmadinejad has been president, in other words, Iran's nuclear-weapons program has been halted.

Apparently, the madman did not call the shots.

His predecessor, Mohammad Khatemi, could have warned him of that. Khatemi, a moderate "reformer" (by Iranian standards) was elected and re-elected Iran's president by super-majorities of the popular vote. For four of his eight years in office, his supporters controlled a super-majority in parliament. They never enacted their reform agenda, however, because it was vetoed by the Council of Guardians, which is comprised of six clergymen appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and six secular lawyers appointed by the Iranian judiciary.

"In January 2007," the Congressional Research Service reported, "an Iranian newspaper owned by Khamenei admonished Ahmadinejad to remove himself from the nuclear issue."

The intelligence community assumes a certain long-term stability among Iran's real deciders. "This Estimate does assume that the strategic goals and basic structure of Iran's senior leadership and government will remain similar to those that have endured since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989," says the NIE.

President Bush seems to agree. "The NIE talks about how a carrot-and-stick approach can work," said Bush at his Tuesday press conference. "And it was working until Ahmadinejad came in. And our hope is that the Iranians will get diplomacy back on track."

The political Left's bet is simply this: The ayatollahs may be immoderate, but they are not irrational. In my view, that is a sucker's bet.
 
The Zionist 5th Column.

It is apparent to those of us on the side of human rights and social justice in the Middle East that within America there is another real live 5th Column, meaning as you can find in Wikipedia, that we have Americans working to subvert U.S. national interests in favor of another country's national interests--that country being Israel.

I now see why Eric is as driven as this anti-Zionist is to post pro-Zionism, pro-Judaism topics continually here on his blog. I knew he had a childhood/young adult connection to radical activists led by many Jewish Leftists, but on the other hand, eric plays the far more conservative liberal in his public image to the community.

I know where I get my fanaticism to post day after day anti-Zionist information and opinions. I am driven by a religious consciousness of total unfairness amounting to blasphemy in the Holy Land with modern Israel's unholy treatment of Palestinian peoples whose land Israel has taken through force of arms supplied in great part by Americans.

But why does Eric posts these Jewish/Zionist topics all the time? What drives him? I think now it is an unresolved conflict he has with himself about "Anti-Americanism", a slogan he and his family surely were very very familiar with.

Communists were really working as a 5th Column for the Soviets to destroy our social-economic system from within. American Communists were working for the Soviet Union's national interests and not America's.

I see the same phenomena now in American Zionism and Zionists, professional or volunteer ones like Eric, acting as another 5th Column working not for American national interests but Israel's, at America's expense. Eric is playing out his radical parents lives this way yet, because this new 5th Column has so gained so much political power in our nation, he believes he can be publicly pro-Israel and in the Zionist political pocket, like Hillary Clinton, but he and she forget there's always truth waiting to get its say. Truth will out and the days are coming soon when Americans realize the danger of the new Zionist 5th Column.
 
Quite a treatise, Jeff. You had me right up to the end and then you jumped from the land of logic into wishful fantasy. I would guess that you copy / pasted most of that and only authored the final sentence yourself.

The political left doesn't write the NIE's.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for www.electoral-vote.com